toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: files that differ by case only (via CIFS); forced 8.3 notatio
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

On 06/18/99 09:26:24 you wrote: >Once a file is detected as having a name conflict we do not reexamine it once >the duplicate file is deleted. We do that for performance reasons and >functionality reasons. The performance reason is that we do not wish to revist >the 8.3 name generation every time we delete a file. The functionality reason >is that something may now depend on the name of the file being FOOBAR~1. Don't feel bad, Todd, when I first encountered the issue I thought the same thing as you. Rob gave me the same explanation and although counterintuitive at first you realize in the long run it makes sense to do it this way. Bruce

1 0

RE: Spares kits.
by Palinckx, Gregory 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Hi Shaun, Since they have different motherboards, they will have different spares kits - though some parts will be the same. Shelf spares could be the same (FC7 or FC8 etc...). Greg SE - Rockies -----Original Message----- From: Shaun T. Erickson [mailto:ste@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 12:14 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Spares kits. Do the F720, F740 & F760 filers use the same spares kit, or are there different ones for each one? -ste -- Work: (908) 582-7629 Pager: (800) 756-1133 Cell: (201) 310-9941

1 0

Netfiler, NT & Notes
by Patrick.Day.B＠bayer.com 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Has anyone implemented the Lotus Domino Server as described by netapp? We are trying to, and have run across a snag. We have Notes in stalled on an NT server that is direct connected (crossover cable w/ dedicated nics) to a 740 (DOT 5.2.1). We are able get the Notes Server to map the drive at boot time and work. When someone (the notes service account or anyone) logs onto the server, the mapped drive is present. The problem arises when the person logs off. The network connection is dropped and Notes is unable to access the directory until we do a reboot. Has anyone had this experience or found a work around. I really hate the idea that once someone logs onto the server they have to stay logged on or reboot the server. Thanx ahead of time! --Patrick Day Sys Admin Bayer Corp.

1 0

files that differ by case only (via CIFS); forced 8.3 notation sticks when one is removed
by Todd C. Merrill 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

This may not be a bug, may just be the way NT handles files that differ by case only, but I just wanted to be sure.... Say I have two files, created via NFS, that differ in case only, that are longer than 8 characters: %touch foobar123 %touch fooBar123 %/bin/ls -alF foo* -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:46 fooBar123 -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:45 foobar123 On a Windows NT box (4.0 SP3), they appear as: H:>\ dir foo* 06/18/99 11:45a 0 foobar123 06/18/99 11:46a 0 FOOBAR~1 If I remove foobar123 from an NFS mount: %rm foobar123 the Windows box then shows: H:>\ dir foo* 06/18/99 11:46a 0 FOOBAR~1 Why doesn't it show the file as "fooBar123" now? How come it is stuck with the forced 8.3 notation? It still appears with the original name via the NFS mount: %/bin/ls -alF foo* -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:46 fooBar123 The only way I can force it back is to rename it to something else and then rename it back to the original name: % mv fooBar123 fb; mv fb fooBar123 % /bin/ls -alF foo* -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:46 fooBar123 H:>\ dir foo* 06/18/99 11:46a 0 fooBar123 I don't fully understand the behavoiur of Windows naming, so any light shed upon this would be great. If this is expected behaviour, well, I guess we'll just have to deal with these errors as they crop up in our automated test environment. (NetApp Release 5.2.1P2: Tue Mar 16 10:41:03 PST 1999) Until next time... Todd C. Merrill The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7792 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, MA 01760-1500 508-647-7012 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

2 1

RE: files that differ by case only (via CIFS); forced 8.3 notatio n sticks when one is removed
by Hawley, Rob 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Once a file is detected as having a name conflict we do not reexamine it once the duplicate file is deleted. We do that for performance reasons and functionality reasons. The performance reason is that we do not wish to revist the 8.3 name generation every time we delete a file. The functionality reason is that something may now depend on the name of the file being FOOBAR~1. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > mailto: hawleyr(a)netapp.com <mailto:hawleyr@netapp.com> US Mail: Network Appliance Inc. > Phone: 408-822-6661 2770 San Tomas Expressway > FAX: 408-822-4457 Santa Clara, CA 95051 -----Original Message----- From: Todd C. Merrill [mailto:tmerrill@mathworks.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 8:58 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Cc: Todd C. Merrill; Michael Mirman Subject: files that differ by case only (via CIFS); forced 8.3 notation sticks when one is removed This may not be a bug, may just be the way NT handles files that differ by case only, but I just wanted to be sure.... Say I have two files, created via NFS, that differ in case only, that are longer than 8 characters: %touch foobar123 %touch fooBar123 %/bin/ls -alF foo* -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:46 fooBar123 -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:45 foobar123 On a Windows NT box (4.0 SP3), they appear as: H:>\ dir foo* 06/18/99 11:45a 0 foobar123 06/18/99 11:46a 0 FOOBAR~1 If I remove foobar123 from an NFS mount: %rm foobar123 the Windows box then shows: H:>\ dir foo* 06/18/99 11:46a 0 FOOBAR~1 Why doesn't it show the file as "fooBar123" now? How come it is stuck with the forced 8.3 notation? It still appears with the original name via the NFS mount: %/bin/ls -alF foo* -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:46 fooBar123 The only way I can force it back is to rename it to something else and then rename it back to the original name: % mv fooBar123 fb; mv fb fooBar123 % /bin/ls -alF foo* -rw-r--r-- 1 toddc users 0 Jun 18 11:46 fooBar123 H:>\ dir foo* 06/18/99 11:46a 0 fooBar123 I don't fully understand the behavoiur of Windows naming, so any light shed upon this would be great. If this is expected behaviour, well, I guess we'll just have to deal with these errors as they crop up in our automated test environment. (NetApp Release 5.2.1P2: Tue Mar 16 10:41:03 PST 1999) Until next time... Todd C. Merrill The Mathworks, Inc. 508-647-7792 24 Prime Park Way, Natick, MA 01760-1500 508-647-7012 FAX tmerrill(a)mathworks.com http://www.mathworks.com ---

1 0

Backup
by sroche 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

I am experiencing a problem with dump since upgrading the filers to 5.2.2. I contacted Netapp for help as you can see below. Netapp is still working on this problem and said no one has reported anything like this and this is first of its kind. Netapp cannot duplicate the problem because they don't have autoloader inhouse. I was hoping perhap you can contact some of your customers who has a simular setup as I do here. I have a DLT4700 connected to a filer. I dump the filer to tapes and use restore to restore or list the content of the tapes. Since the upgrade I notice on the dump log the inode from a next tape is not steadily increase but start from 0. I didn't expect the dump could be bad because what have written to tape's number increment steadily. I would greatly appreciated if you can look into this. Thank you in advance for any help you can. --Ling. Steven B. Roche Senior Account Executive Open Systems Solutions ph 508-359-4248 ext. 319 fx 508-359-5215 em sroche(a)opensystems.com

3 2

RE: Backup a filer using Omniback
by Palinckx, Gregory 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Hello Jan, In case you are not aware of it, there is a group within HP over in Germany that is working on the NDMP solution for OmniBack - Last update I received was late last year and they were shooting for a June 99 early release date. You might want to check with HP on the status - Let me know if your HP reps are unaware of the project and I'll see if I can track down a contact and/or the latest release date. To answer your question though, I know you can back up a filer with OmniBack over a NFS mount, but am not sure if it will back up a share or UNC path - if so, I would *suspect* that it will retain ACLs as well as UNIX permissions. Regards, Greg ----------------------------------------------------- Greg Palinckx Phone: 303.770.9158 System Engineer Mobile: 303.882.5996 Network Appliance Email: palinckx(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Schepers, Jan [mailto:Jan.Schepers@nl.origin-it.com] Sent: Friday, June 18, 1999 2:37 AM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: Backup a filer using Omniback Hello people, it is very likely that there is somebody who has experience to backup a Netapp filer using HP/Omniback. Questions are: o is it possible ? o Is it possible to backup/restore both CIFS and UNIX meta data like ACL's ? o What about performance ? o What configuration (of the backup client) is required ? TIA, Jan Schepers =============== Origin - Sharing The Power Of Knowledge =============== Jan Schepers Building HCZ 4B.20 Computer Systems & Architectures Vonderweg 11 Origin/Technical Automation 5611 BK Eindhoven mailto:Jan.Schepers@nl.origin-it.com The Netherlands SERI schepers@nlorigin FAX :(+31-40-27)56171 Mobex :(+31-40-27)96025 Phone :(+31-40-27)57503 =======================================================================

1 0

Backup a filer using Omniback
by Schepers, Jan 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Hello people, it is very likely that there is somebody who has experience to backup a Netapp filer using HP/Omniback. Questions are: o is it possible ? o Is it possible to backup/restore both CIFS and UNIX meta data like ACL's ? o What about performance ? o What configuration (of the backup client) is required ? TIA, Jan Schepers =============== Origin - Sharing The Power Of Knowledge =============== Jan Schepers Building HCZ 4B.20 Computer Systems & Architectures Vonderweg 11 Origin/Technical Automation 5611 BK Eindhoven mailto:Jan.Schepers@nl.origin-it.com The Netherlands SERI schepers@nlorigin FAX :(+31-40-27)56171 Mobex :(+31-40-27)96025 Phone :(+31-40-27)57503 =======================================================================

1 0

RE: Named Pipes?
by Muhlestein, Mark 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

Named pipes are used to communicate between software components. That would imply that there is some software loaded on the server which the DB application is talking to. Since we are not running NT on the filer, there is no way to do that. What you need to find out is if the DB supports running with the files on a remote drive, either using a mapped drive letter or UNC names. Many DB's (for example Oracle), do support that mode and can thus use the filer as back-end storage. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Shamblin [mailto:shamblin.brian@Mayo.EDU] Sent: Thursday, June 17, 1999 6:40 AM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Named Pipes? We are trying to move our database files (not the database, just the data) from an NT server to our filer. The database application, DOCS Open from PC DOCS, insists on using Named Pipes to access the files (we're telling the application that they reside on NTFS). It appears that the filer has no support for this type of access method. Has anyone else encountered this problem? Any plans to add this support to ONTAP? Thanks in advance. ==================================================================== Brian Shamblin shamblin(a)mayo.edu Mayo Foundation voice: (507)284-4069 Rochester, MN fax: (507)284-9171 ====================================================================

2 1

Named Pipes?
by Brian Shamblin 18 Jun '99

18 Jun '99

We are trying to move our database files (not the database, just the data) from an NT server to our filer. The database application, DOCS Open from PC DOCS, insists on using Named Pipes to access the files (we're telling the application that they reside on NTFS). It appears that the filer has no support for this type of access method. Has anyone else encountered this problem? Any plans to add this support to ONTAP? Thanks in advance. ==================================================================== Brian Shamblin shamblin(a)mayo.edu Mayo Foundation voice: (507)284-4069 Rochester, MN fax: (507)284-9171 ====================================================================

2 1

Re: Virus
by yann.golanski＠ThePLAnet.net 17 Jun '99

17 Jun '99

Quoting Mark D Fowle <Fowle_Mark_D(a)CAT.com>: > Our NT Administrator wants to know how to protect the NetApps from viruses. > Unlike running on an NT server he > says he can't autoprotect data. Does anyone know how this might be done? Two ways. Use exim as a mail agent (yes, that DOES involve having a *nix box) and set a filter so that all attachemtn that match a list are `canned' or frozen. Then he can look thrugh them and only allow those he knows are not viruses. Of course, a list of known viruses can be set up to send the mail to /dev/null. The second: move to *nix. Check out VMware as a way to migrate. Remeber the filer is an appliance. It stores data. That's it. The security needs to come from somewhere else. -- Yann Golanski Internet Systems Developer yann.golanski(a)theplanet.net The Planet Online

1 0

RE: CIFS and the MaxMpxCt parameter
by Muhlestein, Mark 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

We have a fix for that in 5.3D14. The value is set via the cifs.max_mpx option, which has a maximum of 255, same as NT. Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Graham C. Knight [mailto:grahamk@ast.lmco.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 3:12 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: CIFS and the MaxMpxCt parameter We have a windows NT terminal server that servers out up to 60 Windows NT sessions at a time. The Windows NT people are complaining because after a certain amount of connections to our filer they start getting errors that look like this: "\\filername is not accessible. The remote procedure call failed and did not execute." So, they opened a call with Microsoft, and after 3 or 4 days of wrangling Microsoft has told them that the MaxMpxCt needs to be increased on the file server. Well, i can find no reference to this anywhere in NetApp's documentation, so i'm figuring that this is a Windows NT server thing and that it has nothing to do with a filer. But i don't know for sure, or if there is something else i can set that does the same type of thing. Here's the blurb from M$. Any ideas? Cause: During negotiation of the SMB dialect, the MaxMpxCt parameter (NT server registry, option in NetApp filer?) is passed to the client's (Terminal Server's) redirector where the limit of outstanding network requests is enforced. Explorer makes extensive use of directory notifications, resulting in a number of NTNotifyDirectoryChange SMBs being sent to the server (NetApp filer). This SMB request is classified as a long term request and is received by the server but not sent back until a change occurs. When several clients connect to the Terminal Server, the number of outstanding commands against the server can exceed the default maximum of 50. If this situation arises, other SMB requests will wait in the redirector until previous requests complete, timeout, or are cancelled. Resolution: Increase the MaxMpxCt parameter on the remote server to allow more simultaneous SMB connections. Thanks, Graham

1 0

CIFS and the MaxMpxCt parameter
by Graham C. Knight 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

We have a windows NT terminal server that servers out up to 60 Windows NT sessions at a time. The Windows NT people are complaining because after a certain amount of connections to our filer they start getting errors that look like this: "\\filername is not accessible. The remote procedure call failed and did not execute." So, they opened a call with Microsoft, and after 3 or 4 days of wrangling Microsoft has told them that the MaxMpxCt needs to be increased on the file server. Well, i can find no reference to this anywhere in NetApp's documentation, so i'm figuring that this is a Windows NT server thing and that it has nothing to do with a filer. But i don't know for sure, or if there is something else i can set that does the same type of thing. Here's the blurb from M$. Any ideas? Cause: During negotiation of the SMB dialect, the MaxMpxCt parameter (NT server registry, option in NetApp filer?) is passed to the client's (Terminal Server's) redirector where the limit of outstanding network requests is enforced. Explorer makes extensive use of directory notifications, resulting in a number of NTNotifyDirectoryChange SMBs being sent to the server (NetApp filer). This SMB request is classified as a long term request and is received by the server but not sent back until a change occurs. When several clients connect to the Terminal Server, the number of outstanding commands against the server can exceed the default maximum of 50. If this situation arises, other SMB requests will wait in the redirector until previous requests complete, timeout, or are cancelled. Resolution: Increase the MaxMpxCt parameter on the remote server to allow more simultaneous SMB connections. Thanks, Graham

1 0

Re: Data Ontap 5.3 and snapshots
by Jason D. Kelleher 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

In message <199906162020.NAA14794@tooting>, Guy Harris writes: >> >Has anyone fond a quick way to touch all CIFS shares and directories on >the >> >filer to convert the directories immediately to Unicode so all snapshots >> >thereafter are clean? >> >> From UNIX: >> >> find /filer_root -name .snapshot -prune -o -name SOMETHING_THAT_W >ONT_MATCH -print > >That works only if your UNIX box is a Linux box using "smbfs" to access >the filer (and I have the impression that may not work), or you have >some other UNIX client that uses CIFS rather than NFS. > >Otherwise, they'll be NFS accesses, which don't cause directory >conversion. NFS access triggers conversion with ONTAP 4.0 or later, unless I'm misreading the 5.3 docs. Check here: http://now.netapp.com/knowledge/docs/ontap/rel53/html/sag/multi12.htm Of course this could be wrong, wouldn't be the first error in the 5.3 documentation. BTW, when does NetApp plan on releasing non-ambiguous docs for second level virtual interfaces? jason

2 1

Re: Data Ontap 5.3 and snapshots
by Jason D. Kelleher 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

In message <000101beb7fa$c40f32f0$08ffa8c0(a)ossmball.rtp.opensystems.com>, "M ike Ball" writes: [...] >Has anyone fond a quick way to touch all CIFS shares and directories on the >filer to convert the directories immediately to Unicode so all snapshots >thereafter are clean? From UNIX: find /filer_root -name .snapshot -prune -o -name SOMETHING_THAT_WONT_MATCH -print From a Win box: Start file manager and do a search for "SOMETHING_THAT_WONT_MATCH" with the "Start From" being the root of the filer. That should do it. jason

2 1

Re: Virus
by Graham C. Knight 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

Mark D Fowle wrote: > > Our NT Administrator wants to know how to protect the NetApps from viruses. > Unlike running on an NT server he > says he can't autoprotect data. Does anyone know how this might be done? > > Mark Fowle > Caterpillar-BCP We run Mcafee virus scans on our filers nightly with very good results. We created a username in NT that maps to root on the filer and let it rip. Initially i was concerned with the mix of Unix and NT files on our volumes confusing the virus scanner, but after a lot of testing I'm satisfied that it's not a problem. GRaham

2 2

Re: Data Ontap 5.3 and snapshots
by Joan Pearson 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

As another has mentioned, from the Windows client start a Find in the root directory. All directories will be converted to unicode format as they are traversed. By default, new directories created from CIFS are in unicode format. If you want to ensure all directories created from NFS are also in Unicode format, set the wafl.create_ucode option to True. You may be able to access your unconverted snapshot directories from NFS. Joan Pearson At 06:18 AM 6/16/99 , you wrote: >I have noticed in snapshots taken since I upgraded to 5.3, I am receiving >"access is denied" on various directories in the snapshots. > >This is due to the directories not being converted to Unicode as they have >not been accessed since the upgrade. I understand with 5.3, until a CIFS >directory is accessed it is not converted to Unicode. The problem I have >hear is I had some corrupted files last week in one of my directories on my >filer. When I went back to recover from any of the previous snapshots taken >since the 5.3 upgrade, I received "Access is denied" since those directories >where never touched since the 5.3 upgrade and therefore never converted to >Unicode. > >Has anyone fond a quick way to touch all CIFS shares and directories on the >filer to convert the directories immediately to Unicode so all snapshots >thereafter are clean? > Thank you, > Mike >

1 0

RE: Virus
by Muhlestein, Mark 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

If by "autoprotect data" you mean run a server-based scan, that is correct, the filer does not have a built-in virus scanner. However, there are good reasons why you don't want to do that. One obvious reason is that the filer would be slowed down because every file access requires the virus scanner to get involved, which penalizes all users. It is much better to do the scanning on the clients since that has the correct scaling properties. You should have virus scanning software loaded on all your clients, but you should also have one or more clients run periodic on-demand scans of the filer data. There are several advantages to running the scans from standard PC clients, not least of which is the rapid availability of updated versions to catch the latest viruses. Another advantage is that with multiple PC clients you can parallelize the scans, which can be a great timesaver if you have a large amount of data to scan. You should also make sure your NT administrator understands the advantages of snapshots, which can be used to very good effect when a new virus is found for which there is no anti-virus software yet. And, of course, the filer is not directly susceptible to viruses because it does not run general applications. Overall, I'd say the filer has a very good anti-virus story compared to NT server. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Mark D Fowle [mailto:Fowle_Mark_D@CAT.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 1999 7:03 AM To: toasters Subject: Virus Our NT Administrator wants to know how to protect the NetApps from viruses. Unlike running on an NT server he says he can't autoprotect data. Does anyone know how this might be done? Mark Fowle Caterpillar-BCP

1 0

Virus
by Mark D Fowle 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

Our NT Administrator wants to know how to protect the NetApps from viruses. Unlike running on an NT server he says he can't autoprotect data. Does anyone know how this might be done? Mark Fowle Caterpillar-BCP

1 0

Data Ontap 5.3 and snapshots
by Mike Ball 16 Jun '99

16 Jun '99

I have noticed in snapshots taken since I upgraded to 5.3, I am receiving "access is denied" on various directories in the snapshots. This is due to the directories not being converted to Unicode as they have not been accessed since the upgrade. I understand with 5.3, until a CIFS directory is accessed it is not converted to Unicode. The problem I have hear is I had some corrupted files last week in one of my directories on my filer. When I went back to recover from any of the previous snapshots taken since the 5.3 upgrade, I received "Access is denied" since those directories where never touched since the 5.3 upgrade and therefore never converted to Unicode. Has anyone fond a quick way to touch all CIFS shares and directories on the filer to convert the directories immediately to Unicode so all snapshots thereafter are clean? Thank you, Mike

1 0

RE: the virus
by Sam Schorr 15 Jun '99

15 Jun '99

Is this the same logic that says its okay to rape based on how women dress? -----Original Message----- From: tkaczma(a)gryf.net [mailto:tkaczma@gryf.net] Sent: Monday, June 14, 1999 12:26 PM To: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: the virus On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Douglas Ritschel wrote: > I think it should be a capital offense. But not to the virus writers, but the people that ignorantly open them. I think that Microsoft at al. should be held accountable for the ease with which the worm takes advantage of those systems. Tom

5 6

Re: Converting F230 SCSI drives to F740
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 15 Jun '99

15 Jun '99

On 06/15/99 11:18:54 you wrote: >If there is a problem with the boot image on disk, Intel when you really need >Alpha would be considered a problem, you can boot from floppy and run the >`download' command to refresh the boot image. Right. Although for the move, it doesn't sound like he'll need to do this; if he can set the alpha to use vol1 and make it the root volume and move the other disks over as vol0 (can you do that without the filer wanting to rename things?) then he can just type "download" on the running filer after the move and refresh the vol0 disks with the alpha image. Bruce

1 0

Re: the virus
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 15 Jun '99

15 Jun '99

On 06/14/99 10:45:48 you wrote: > >In theory, The worm/trojan he wrote could have deleted the research for >the drug that would one day save his life... Unfortunately Netapp probably sold them a filer so snapshots allowed them to recover the data. :) Bruce

1 0

Re: the virus
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 15 Jun '99

15 Jun '99

On 06/14/99 14:26:05 you wrote: >On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, Douglas Ritschel wrote: > >> I think it should be a capital offense. > >But not to the virus writers, but the people that ignorantly open them. I >think that Microsoft at al. should be held accountable for the ease with >which the worm takes advantage of those systems. I can't resist this opportunity to take a jab at Microsoft by noting that I think the people who ignorantly use Microsoft mail clients that allow them to be taken advantage of are partly accountable too. :) Bruce PS - No, I'm not really defending the virus writers. And oddly enough I didn't get hit, despite being on several lists.

1 0

Re: AFS/DFS??!! :-) (and FTP!)
by sirbruce＠ix.netcom.com 15 Jun '99

15 Jun '99

On 06/14/99 14:35:34 you wrote: > >> Are the binaries modular, i.e. only licensed modules are installed into >> memory? > >No - ONTAP is a single image with all modules linked into it. > > Right... my point was that it's still a very small code image compared to the 128MB+ your filer is going to have, even if the image is (allegedly) ten times larger than it used to be. I suppose certain features like CIFS will use more memory to allocate certain data structures for buffers and the like, but I was under the impression that if you weren't using it, this memory wasn't going to be allocated. (Ditto anything extra a particular network card like ATM may need to allocate to operate.) Bruce

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters